Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Privateers
  • Content Сount

    7,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2137
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,831 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    -All things naval, especially from a technical perspective
    -History in general
    -Rock

Recent Profile Visitors

7,306 profile views
  1. The point is that it does more consistent damage to DDs, rather than facing significant reductions once saturation starts. However, initial, it's not going to be out-performing HE. Additionally, keep in mind SAP has utility again cruisers, too. The 381/50's APC (Palla), due to its high impact velocity and penetration, tends to over-penetrate cruisers if it misses their citadel - SAP makes up for that, dealing much more damage to thin areas of cruisers where the APC would just overpenetrate.
  2. It would not have been indefinite - eventually, I'm sure, with enough time, they could have finally gotten to the proper theoretic of the issue and then been able to start a nuclear program that could have gone somewhere. But they were so far off that there was never even a chance of it manifesting given their inevitable defeat. The odds were simply too far against them, and they didn't have the time. Their ideology, as outlined before, had squandered what little time they had in the first place. I don't know if I can stress it anymore than I already have. There wasn't much that needed to be done to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon because Nazi ideological politics had already done enough damage to make it irrelevant. Even by 1945, they were nowhere near a weapon on even the theoretical basis. There was still much more work that needed to be done before anything physical could even be started. Trying to compare the timetables of the British or Soviet programs to that of Germany is a flawed method due to the fact both programs were aided to varying degrees by the American program, on top of years of theoretical work in the field in the decade prior. The British program was ultimately aided by their cooperation in the Manhattan project, and the Soviets were able to rapidly accelerate their programs via espionage - without this the Soviet nuclear program would have been delayed to a far greater degree. The French program might be a better yardstick, as they basically had to start from scratch in 1945, and were able to test their first nuclear weapon in 1960 - a period of 15 years. As far as timetables go - the reality was Germany went to war in 1939 because they had no choice. Nazi economic policy and continuous mobilization from 1933 to 1939 had destroyed the German economy, leaving it held up largely by facades and the ability to convince people it wasn't broken. Once people stopped buying bonds a serious crisis became apparent, and Hitler had no choice but to act. The thing that sustained the Nazi economy past 1939 was war itself - all the war booty from various other nations - Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, etc - provided capital that allowed the economy to survive, just as the same style of capital injections had sustained the 'peacetime' economy since 1938 - first from Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and what was essentially the robbery of its Jewish population. If Germany doesn't go to war in late 1939, the Nazi regime will just end up collapsing in the ensuing economic disaster, entirely of their own making. The ability to actually drop the bomb on a target, though a considerable issue if it ever came down to it, is essentially rendered irrelevant by the fact that Germany was never going to have the bomb to do it in the first place. They were simply not close enough on a theoretical basis even by 1945, which largely dooms any efforts for an atomic bomb before 1950. Because of WWII, they'll be defeated in 1945 anyways. If they don't go to war, the Nazi regime doesn't have more than a year in them and the point is moot.
  3. Phoenix_jz

    Naval and Defense News 2020

    The Italian government has greenlit what is probably one of the biggest export orders post-war Italy has ever seen. The last pair of FREMM for the Marina Militare, Spartaco Schergat (F 598) and Emilio Bianchi (F 589), will be sold directly to the Egyptian navy, and Fincantieri would build a further pair. This would bring the total number of FREMM operated by the Egyptian navy to five, four of the Carlo Bergamini-class and one of the Aquitaine-class. Furthermore, two more FREMM will be produced for the Marina Militare, to fulfil the original contract of 10 ships.
  4. Phoenix_jz

    Fan made Italian tech tree

    Unfortunately I've only got sparse material for post-Joffre (PA 16) designs. I can happily second @mr3awsome's recommendation of John Jordan's Joffre article in Warship 2010. The table that covers most projects from PA 1 to PA 15 is pretty compact, I'll spoiler it below; In the next spoiler, which may be of some interest to you (if you haven't seen them already), there's discussion of rebuilding the Duquesne-class heavy cruisers into carriers of sorts (first image), and the potential conversion of Jean Bart to a carrier (second image); For what it's worth, I also have the following images for various other projects, though that's literally all I have on them;
  5. Phoenix_jz

    Fan made Italian tech tree

    I'm pretty excited to see what Cosentino has to say about Aquila, since more information is always nice (to be honest I wish she'd get a full article like he did for Bonfiglietti's carriers, or John Jordan's articles on the Béarn and Joffre). If anything, though, I'm more excited to see what he has to say about Sparviero, since information on her is always contradictory, and it seems in reality she was significantly different from what is often claimed (a rehash of the emergency conversions of the 1930s). I'm also interested to see if he ventures into some of the cruiser conversions - Bolzano's is decently known, but I'm curious if there's any details on the plans for Foch.
  6. Phoenix_jz

    Fan made Italian tech tree

    Warship 2015 has an excellent article by Cmdr. Michele Cosentino that focuses entirely on the carrier designs of Bonfiglietti. He's also the author of the Warship 2020 article mentioned by Sparviero, which will cover efforts from 1922 to 1939. Apparently the second part to that article, discussing wartime efforts, will be in Warship 2021. Warship 2007 also has an article on Italian carrier efforts from start to modern day, by Cernuschi & O'Hara, though this is focused on political rather than technical aspects of the quest for carriers. Cosentino's 2-part article is/will be more technical in nature.
  7. To be honest, in an alternate world where Germany doesn't invade Poland in 1939, or anyone else for that matter (seeing as the invasion of Poland is what first got the H-39-class suspended), I'd imagine the more likely course of events is Hitler and much of the Nazi leadership spending a considerable amount of time in prison for their actions from 1933-1939, as even setting aside their political and social policies, they did devastating damage to the German economy in this period and by 1939 it was on the verge of economic collapse. Invading Poland and other European states was practically a self-preservation act by the Nazi regime for a crisis their excessive rearmament programs and economic policy had created. Given this, it's pretty much a guarantee that the H-class (H-39's) battleships would have never been completed except perhaps under massive delay, and H-41 (or the sidetrack H-40 series) would have never existed even on paper. H-42 itself wasn't even an official design (nor was H-43 or H-44), and were simply impractical ships in the first place. Most likely the first pair of H-39 battleships laid down would have been the last German battleships ever laid down, and if they were ever completed, they could have held the title of last German battleships to ever be completed. Though the first pair of 'Alsace' battleships were a reaction to learning about the pair of H-39 classes. In the event of a 'no war' scenario, they'd probably still be ordered as, in a no-war scenario, and even with a collapse in German naval construction alongside their economy, there's still the Italians to worry about, and they were already intended to lay down a new pair of battleships after Impero and Roma (they had originally been in the 1939 program before being tossed out due to the escalation in Europe), which clocked in at 45,000 tons standard and had an armament of 3x3 406mm guns. Given this was still being referred to as a '41,000-ton' battleship, the specs would not seem dissimilar to the H-39 class the French were already intended the Alsace-class to counter, and in any case and major design change would delay the laying down of said ships. At that point, however, it will be 1942 before anyone has to consider a new pair of battleships - which is a long shot, as neither France nor Italy have much capacity to go above 45,000 tons standard, and likewise have little to gain from doing so. I seriously doubt we see any more powerful battleships than those be built - either we'd be faced with improved repeats, or a new naval treaty to try and curb the re-start to the new battleship arms race (which Italy and France have effectively been in since 1934). As it is the battleships such as the '41,000-ton battleship' or 'Alsace' aren't likely to be completed until 1944 at the earliest, so we're already pushing far into the future - especially since slips for battleships will be competing with slips for aircraft carriers. As it was, Joffre's sister ship, Painlevé, was to be orphaned out of a slip in favor of the first Alsace-class battleship. Any new orders for French battleships likely have to come at the expense of carriers, and vice versa. Italy, if it wants to build larger carriers. There are only so many large slips to go around.
  8. The Gascogne design lies between the all-forward designs that dominated in the early 1930s, and the 'Alsace' series. In 1937 Admiral Darlan requested studies from the STCN (MN's Naval Construction Department) for 380mm battleship designs - either eight guns in two quadruples in either an A-B or A-Y layout, or nine guns in three triples in an A-B-Y layout. Before then, all layouts explored were all-forward types, either like Dunkerque, various forms on nelson-style layouts, and a pair based on Admiral de Feo's amidships layout. Some twelve designs followed - the Project A series (A1, A2, A3, A3 bis) were all 2x4 A-B layouts like the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes. The Project B series (B1, B2, B3, B3 bis, B3 ter) were A-Y version, and the Project C series (C1, C2, C3) were the 3x3 versions (A-B-Y). Since the C-series added over 2,000 tons over Richelieu, they had to be dropped for the time being, but the A and B series were still submitted to Admiral Darlan (on 19 March 1938), and he selected Project A2, which became Clemenceau (50 tons heavier than Richelieu), and Project B3 ter, which became Gascogne (which was 360 tons lighter). Why order two types? The B-series - what became Gascogne - was well received, due to the more rational main battery layout and far better layout for the heavy AA battery, but re-design would take more time compared to the A series designs, which was an unacceptable delay due to the need to lay down new battleships as soon as possible, so an A-series design was selected for the 1938 tranche (Clemenceau was laid down at Brest's Salou No.4 dock the very same day Richelieu was launched from it), and Gascogne for the 1938 bis tranche (who was planned to be laid down once Jean Bart was launched). Due to the limitations of French naval infrastructure at the time, there was little will to push past 35,000 tons, mainly because no one else in Europe supposedly was yet, and France really couldn't afford to - as it was, the existing battleships had to be built and launched in multiple parts (missing portions of the bow, or bow and stern). This finally changed in 1939 when French intelligence discovered that the new battleships of the H-39-class had been laid down by Germany, with estimated characteristics of 40,000 tons standard displacement and an armament of 406mm guns (in reality, they were actually 56,000 tons standard). Thus, France's hand was forced, and on 20 July 1939, Darlan ordered studies for battleships of a displacement greater than 35,000 tons standard, with armaments of 400mm, 406mm, or 420mm guns. The STCN started their work off the 'C' series from their 1937-1938 work (3x3 A-B-Y), which had all the advantages of the B-series (guns fore and aft, superior heavy AA battery layout), but the advantage of carrying more guns in more turrets, and a greater volume of fire forward. The developments of these designs subsequently produced the three designs we know collectively as the 'Alsace' series; N°1 - 40,000 tons standard, 252 meters long, 3x3 380mm guns N°2 - 42,500 tons standard, 256 meters long, 3x3 406mm guns N°3 - 45,000 tons stnadard, 265 meters long, 3x4 380mm guns The N°3 design represented the maximum size of any design France could feasibly build, and was considered too much of a stretch anyways. On 1 April 1940, a pair of the 40,000-ton battleships was authorized, the first to be laid down in 1941, and the second in 1942. To summarize - the 2x4 A-Y layout that was used by Gascogne ultimately ended up being the most satisfactory 35,000-ton design the Marine Nationale was able to produce, though it's likewise pretty clear the 3x3 A-B-Y layout was the preferred solution the entire time, but simply not feasible due to treaty restrictions. The all-forward gun arrangement can primarily be blamed on the rushed development of the early 35,000-ton battleships - the layout had its origins in the post-WNT 'treaty cruiser killer' battlecruiser and battleship designs intended to deal with heavy cruisers like the Trento-class, which evolved into the Dunkerque-class. Richelieu became an enlarged version of the Dunkerque-class because she needed to be laid down as soon as possible, so it was the quickest option. Clemenceau fell into a similar trap, so while she was the most refined version of the 'all-forward' French battleships, she was still not the optimal 35,000-ton battleship for France - that was Gascogne, but Gascogne simply took too much time to develop. Once it became possible to use greater tonnages and thus the 3x3 arrangement, though, Gascogne was dropped as this allowed France to pursue what had been the best available layout the entire time. The argument for future development of three turret 'A-B-Y' battleships certainly has merit, though without significant upgrades to France's dockyards (which were planned) it would be very difficult to pull off, as was seen with the ultimate choice in regards to the 'Alsace'-class. The 'A-Y' arrangement, however, was well and truly done with, so WG's decision to re-use it for their 'République' isn't particularly realistic. The 'Charlemagne' from Navyfield, meanwhile, isn't even worth considering from a historical standpoint - it's just a produce of game developer fantasies. Having quads superfiring over an already superfiring quadruple turret would incur an absurd amount of topweight and it's overall a terrible design.
  9. I'd imagine such an attack would struggle against a single frigate unless a ridiculous amount of missiles were fired. There's a fairly high chance that the ship's VLS will be equipped with 24x SM-2 and 32x ESSM, all active versions, by the time it enters service, which already gives it a very large amount of SAMs to deal with incoming AShMs at close range. On top of that, it's also got a RAM CIWS system aft to deal with any leakers that aren't spoofed by ECM, and forward the 57mm gun is also usable to fire barrages against missiles.
  10. Phoenix_jz

    Semi Dreadnoughts

    The Kawachi-class being labelled as semi-dreadnoughts is not actually an error - they did not have a uniform battery, as Japan was unable to afford enough of the new 305mm guns. Because of this the class used a mixed armament of 2x2 305/50 and 4x2 305/45, which had different ballistics and therefore made it impossible to have a centralized fire control system. Thus, they weren't true dreadnoughts. In many ways they were actually worse off than other semi-dreadnoughts of the era, as having to spot for two sets of 12" guns would have been borderline impossible. Fire control would have been extremely difficult for the class.
  11. Purely fantasy. Largest planned French battleship was the third variant of the 'Alsace' designs, N°3, which is 45,000 tons standard and has 3x4 380mm/45. The largest modern gun project of the MN is the 431mm gun use by WG's République, but that was never attached to a design afaik.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    The royal navies most powerful battleship

    For what it's worth, it is also worth noting that the armor plate used on Vanguard and the King George V-class was stronger per given thickness - the Cemented and homogeneous plates were new versions introduced in the 1930s, and was appreciably stronger than existing WWI-era plates, which is what was used on the Nelson-class and Hood.
  13. The fact that they invaded with the intent to genocide everything that breathed certainly helped stiffen Soviet resistance, though that's less to do with my point. My point was more that the Nazi ideology actually steered their nuclear program badly off course just due to them not accepting the branch of physics necessary to actually develop a weapon. They certainly got further than Japan, mostly due to the fact that Japan's program was unable to make enough progress before the end of the war to amount to anything. They were still stuck purely in the laboratory phase. The German program, meanwhile, is probably best described as being 'nowhere remotely near' a bomb. It speaks volumes that German nuclear scientists were totally shocked at the fact the Americans had deployed a nuclear bomb against Japan, as they had believed they were ahead of the Americans in development up to this point, and they themselves were nowhere close to a nuclear weapon on a theoretical basis of how one might work, nevermind actually building or testing any. While the few remaining scientists who were well versed in theoretical physicists (like Heisenburg) were able to utilize it within the program eventually, the lasting damage of the rejection of 'Jewish' physics had already been done, since it put a generation of young physicists spanning a decade on the wrong track from the start. The progress they were able to make was largely in spite of what Nazi ideology did to the field of physics in Germany, so I would have to argue that yes, it was pretty incompatible with developing a nuclear weapon. It was only when the dogma was abated that scientists like Heisenburg could work without (much) further harassment, and even then enough damage to German efforts had already been done.
  14. If I'm not mistaken, the German nuclear program was basically screwed from the start due to the rejections of theoretical physics by the state, thanks to their 'Jewish' origins. That, paired with the brain drain from Germany of scientists who worked in the field, contributed to them being nowhere close to the bomb by 1945. Nazi ideology, ironically, was incompatible with developing one of the most destructive weapons known to mankind.
  15. Phoenix_jz

    The great battle

    N-squared law is king here - case five is exemplary here. At least 9 times out of 10, a lone Yamato will lose in a fight against two modern battleships. The single ship is simply not powerful enough, or not sufficiently more powerful than any other modern battleship, to really have a solid chance of beating two at a time. So a 3v1 is an easy win for the Allies.
×